Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis is set to hear motions March 18 in a dispute between a Granite City man and his children over how certain properties and businesses he owned came into his offspring's hands.

Plaintiff Edwards Perigen Sr. is suing his children Edward Perigen Jr. and Yvette Cotter for the return of his properties and access to his businesses.

Perigen Sr. claims that he was unduly influenced by his son who threatened him and his daughter who served as his attorney.

Perigen Sr. alleges that his children deprived him of two properties in Granite City and Madison including Perigen's Tavern and Perigen Pools and Supply Center.

Callis will hear a motion to enact a temporary restraining order filed by Perigen Sr. March 18 at 11 a.m.

Perigen Jr. and Cotter moved to continue a March 7 hearing in the suit to allow their attorney Christopher Threlkeld time to review the case. Threlkeld was retained March 5.

According to his complaint, Perigen's children allegedly unduly influenced him to transfer two properties in 2010 to their control.

The plaintiff claims his daughter, Cotter, acted as his attorney in at least one of the transactions.

He claims he was not aware of the exact nature of the transactions he was asked to sign.

He claims his son threatened him over the Perigen's Tavern property, allegedly by making claims that he would have the tavern's liquor license revoked.

Perigen Sr. further claims that his children have denied him access to his pool business and have ceased making payments on $6,000 they agreed to pay him for their interest in that business.

Perigen Sr. retired from the business in 2009 but retained ownership according to his complaint.

The suit seeks order vacating the conveyance of the properties to Perigen Jr. and Cotter.

It also asks for unspecified further relief.

Perigen Sr. also wants the court to enjoin his children from using his pool business's telephone number, compelling them to return properties to him, to surrender the business phone number to his control, and to pay profits generated, punitive damages and his attorney's fees.

The plaintiff moved Feb. 15 for a temporary restraining order barring the defendants from using the phone number at issue and returning the number and the plaintiff's alleged property to him.

The defendants have not filed an answer as yet to the complaint or a response to the request for the restraining order.